Happy Mother's Day

Today is an important day for homo sapiens in the United States as it is Mother's Day. The day that we take a little extra time to thank the one person that was the vessel to our being. To every Mother, I wish them a Happy Mother's Day!

For Minnesotans this year Mothers Day takes on potentially a new meaning as the House of Representatives in Minnesota last week passed legislation that will re-define marriage in Minnesota. It begs the question: Why do we need Government to define marriage or unions when the decision is personal?

Last year when the Marriage Amendment was on the ballot, I did vote against it. The reason why I voted against it wasn't because I disagreed with the definition of marriage being proposed; rather my disagreement, thus my No vote, was with Government making an attempt to define a private decision. It boggles my mind that people, on both sides of the aisle, want to move our society forward and increase the freedoms for all people.

The re-definition of marriage is being seen as a Civil Right by the Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Bi-sexual crowd. Trouble is that there is nothing in Natural Law or Civil Law that states anyone has the Right to marry another person(s). Unfortunately, over the past 200 plus years we have allowed our Government to incorporate marriage into the lexicon of law where simple contract law should prevail.

Those looking to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and woman are trying to use the very government that they rail against in the re-definition of marriage. Why are these same people not understanding that allowing Government in the equation is a loss of freedom?

So, as one sits celebrates the day with those that carried them think about the cycle of life and the happiness it can bring. As one focuses on the happiness, ponder a thought: Is my happiness better achieved privately or is my happiness better achieved with the assistance of Government?

If you are under the belief that happiness is better achieved with the assistance of Government; God help you. If you are under the belief that happiness is better achieved privately then join the effort to reduce the impact Government has on achieving that happiness.

Ben Carson illustrates the fallacy of marriage debate perfectly

Recently Andrea Mitchel hosted Dr. Ben Carson on her show Andrea Mitchel Reports. Andrea Mitchel quizzed Dr. Carson on his view of marriage. Unfortunately for Andrea Mitchel and MSNBC the line of questioning did little to rattle Dr. Carson's conviction on the definition of marriage. It was actually Andrea Mitchel that appeared to be flustered as her follow up questions were terrible. I bring this up as Dr. Carson lays out a great argument on the definition of marriage. Dr. Carson even hints to the abuse by the Federal government in restricting people the freedom of assembly via utilizing marriage as a vessel to transfer assets and death benefits among other aspects. In fact the Federal government has 1,100 laws on the books that abuse marriage in similar fashion. As an aside, this exchange illustrates the fallacy in the thought process of Progressives have in regards to marriage equality as marriage is not a Civil Right. Marriage, as Dr. Carson puts it, is rooted in God and the Bible not society. Take a look for yourself at the interview.

 http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/29/ben-carson-takes-on-msnbcs-andrea-mitchell-on-the-definition-of-marriage/

 Hopefully people will start to realize that marriage should be left to God, and other Dogma, and demand that Government remove itself from this sacred rite.

Gay Marriage: Civil Rights Issue?

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden stated, "I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I  don't see much of a distinction beyond that." The statement lead to a series of walk backs by the White House and a few steps forward by other's in the administration over the past few days. Monday morning on Morning Joe, Education Secretary Arne Duncan in response to a question of supporting gay marriage said, "Yes, I do."

Today, North Carolina will be voting to define marriage as being between a man and a woman while later this year Minnesota will be doing the same. Many argue that creating this definition violates the GLBT communities civil rights. Civil Rights, as I understand it, pertains to the fact that no one may be discriminated based on race,creed or gender. That being said, being gay is a lifestyle and doesn't fall under that protection. Some will argue that the advent of Hate Crime legislation has added lifestyle to the Civil Rights list of protective areas.

What is being missed here is a larger argument and one I am a bit shocked that our Constitutional scholars have not explored further. Our Constitution is pretty clear on the separation of Church and State and Congress shall not pass any laws abridging the freedom to worship at the altar of any God. Those that seek to define marriage as being between one man and one woman do so under the shroud of religion.

If marriage is steeped in religious inception then to define it violates the separation of Church and State clause of the United States Constitution does it not? Instead of trying to use government to force a belief onto others why are we not working to strip away the layers of marriage embedded in our laws, regulations and all aspects of government intervention? Marriage is a choice that people make in the privacy of their dogma and that is where it should remain. I don't need an amendment to believe what marriage is nor do I need my public schools telling my children what marriage is.

Why is there not more discussion surrounding the removal of government from the equation of marriage and leaving marriage to the dogma's of the world?

Repel of DADT should be catalyst of getting the Federal Government out of the rite of marriage

Last week Congress passed legislation that will pave the way for the repel of "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy in the United States military. In response, Vice President Joe Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" last week, "I think the country's evolving. And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with [the Defense of Marriage Act]" http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/25/biden_says_repeal_of_dont_ask_will_pave_way_for_gay_marriage/. The undercurrent of tolerance in America is moving perhaps "evolving" from the bigotry, racist and sexist thoughts of the 50, 60, 70, and 80's. What Vice President Biden is missing is that while society is becoming more tolerant of alternative views and lifestyles it is not the role of government to enact legislation to reflect in the manner Democrats are wanting to.

Instead of eroding State rights by enacting laws that re-defines marriage our Federal government needs to focus on stripping out marriage from our tax codes. Marriage is not something that government should be involved in. The rite of marriage is something that citizens enter into and should be allowed to do so without the interference of government. That interference comes in many forms. That being said, if groups of people in California, Michigan, Iowa, etc...want to enact amendments to their State Constitutions to define marriage then so be it. The definition of marriage is not a power enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. And if people within these States agree/disagree with the new laws they have options – they can leave the state, fight to propose legislation to change the law, or plainly accept the law of the State.

In the end, I believe that marriage should be done within the framework of one's beliefs and not something sanctioned by the Federal Government. Vice President Biden is correct we are becoming more tolerant as a society so let's take the right step and remove the Federal Government from the marriage industry instead of expanding it.

A better approach

During the past November election cycle, Californians voted and passed Prop 8 that changed the California Constitution by eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry and defined marriage as “between a man and a woman”. Currently Minnesota legislators have introduced several bills on the topic of same-sex marriage. Three bills – HF 1824, HF 1870, and HF1871 – have been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature that proposes Minnesota Constitutional amendment of defining a marriage as a union of a man and a woman (http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/gay.asp).

With all the issues facing Americans, why do we spend so much time on the topic of same-sex marriage? Understandably some aspects of our lives, i.e. healthcare, require a “marriage” license in order for ones partner to participate or make decisions on the topic at hand. OutFront Minnesota, and others around the United States, are pushing for a conversation on same-sex marriage with the goal to legalize it as some point in the future.

Why? Why must same-sex be deemed legal? Marriage is not something that Government ought to define, control, enforce, legislate, or license. The sanctity of marriage is established and maintained by ones belief system. Believers that view same-sex marriage as a threat to the nuclear family or against the will of “God” need to be treated the same as those that believe same-sex marriage is completely natural. Holding such a belief does not make one a bigot or homophobic. Rather it is simply their belief system; right or wrong.

It time for Americans to stand up and shorten Governments reach into our lives. Regardless of how one feels on the topic of same-sex marriage, the simple fact is that Government was not formed by the founding fathers to establish the right of marriage. The concept of marriage is rooted in a belief system. Groups like OutFront will further their cause better if they advance the elimination of Government intrusion rather than fighting the moral majority on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Since the word license often translates into right, by changing the jargon from license to certificate we solve one problem facing the concept of marriage. Instead of the state issuing a couple a marriage licenses the state issues certificate that recognizing the union of two people. By recognizing the union the Government is simply stating that.

The new “Civil Union” certificate will afford all Americans the same rights that are held hostage by the marriage license. Going the route of certification and away from licensing, Americans can escape the repeal or proposal of legislation like Prop 8 while shortening the arm of Big Government.